Re: [PATCH v7 2/6] rcu/segcblist: Add counters to segcblist datastructure

[Frederic Weisbecker]

On Wed, Oct 14, 2020 at 08:22:57PM -0400, Joel Fernandes (Google) wrote:
> Add counting of segment lengths of segmented callback list.
> 
> This will be useful for a number of things such as knowing how big the
> ready-to-execute segment have gotten. The immediate benefit is ability
> to trace how the callbacks in the segmented callback list change.
> 
> Also this patch remove hacks related to using donecbs's ->len field as a
> temporary variable to save the segmented callback list's length. This cannot be
> done anymore and is not needed.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Joel Fernandes (Google) <joel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
>  include/linux/rcu_segcblist.h |   2 +
>  kernel/rcu/rcu_segcblist.c    | 133 +++++++++++++++++++++++-----------
>  kernel/rcu/rcu_segcblist.h    |   2 -
>  3 files changed, 92 insertions(+), 45 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/include/linux/rcu_segcblist.h b/include/linux/rcu_segcblist.h
> index b36afe7b22c9..d462ae5e340a 100644
> --- a/include/linux/rcu_segcblist.h
> +++ b/include/linux/rcu_segcblist.h
> @@ -69,8 +69,10 @@ struct rcu_segcblist {
>  	unsigned long gp_seq[RCU_CBLIST_NSEGS];
>  #ifdef CONFIG_RCU_NOCB_CPU
>  	atomic_long_t len;
> +	atomic_long_t seglen[RCU_CBLIST_NSEGS];

Also does it really need to be atomic?

> @@ -245,7 +280,7 @@ void rcu_segcblist_enqueue(struct rcu_segcblist *rsclp,
>  			   struct rcu_head *rhp)
>  {
>  	rcu_segcblist_inc_len(rsclp);
> -	smp_mb(); /* Ensure counts are updated before callback is enqueued. */

That's a significant change that shouldn't be hidden and unexplained in an unrelated
patch or it may be easily missed. I'd suggest to move this line together in
"rcu/tree: Remove redundant smp_mb() in rcu_do_batch" (with the title updated perhaps)
and maybe put it in the beginning of the series?

> +	rcu_segcblist_inc_seglen(rsclp, RCU_NEXT_TAIL);
>  	rhp->next = NULL;
>  	WRITE_ONCE(*rsclp->tails[RCU_NEXT_TAIL], rhp);
>  	WRITE_ONCE(rsclp->tails[RCU_NEXT_TAIL], &rhp->next);
[...]
> @@ -330,11 +353,16 @@ void rcu_segcblist_extract_pend_cbs(struct rcu_segcblist *rsclp,
>  
>  	if (!rcu_segcblist_pend_cbs(rsclp))
>  		return; /* Nothing to do. */
> +	rclp->len = rcu_segcblist_get_seglen(rsclp, RCU_WAIT_TAIL) +
> +		    rcu_segcblist_get_seglen(rsclp, RCU_NEXT_READY_TAIL) +
> +		    rcu_segcblist_get_seglen(rsclp, RCU_NEXT_TAIL);
>  	*rclp->tail = *rsclp->tails[RCU_DONE_TAIL];
>  	rclp->tail = rsclp->tails[RCU_NEXT_TAIL];
>  	WRITE_ONCE(*rsclp->tails[RCU_DONE_TAIL], NULL);
> -	for (i = RCU_DONE_TAIL + 1; i < RCU_CBLIST_NSEGS; i++)
> +	for (i = RCU_DONE_TAIL + 1; i < RCU_CBLIST_NSEGS; i++) {
>  		WRITE_ONCE(rsclp->tails[i], rsclp->tails[RCU_DONE_TAIL]);
> +		rcu_segcblist_set_seglen(rsclp, i, 0);
> +	}

So, that's probably just a matter of personal preference, so feel free to
ignore but I'd rather do:

    rclp->len += rcu_segcblist_get_seglen(rsclp, i);
    rcu_segcblist_set_seglen(rsclp, i, 0);

instead of the big addition above. That way, if a new index ever gets added/renamed
to the segcblist, we'll take it into account. Also that spares a few lines.

Thanks.